Examining Vanessa Otero’s news source credibility chart

I’ve seen several of these attempts at categorizing sources lately and this, from Vanessa Otero, is probably the best so far. (It’s marginally better than the Reddit guide to fake news, which I discussed a few weeks back.)

Still, that the Wall Street Journal is only regarded as skewing a little conservative is a bad joke. That the Washington Post and New York Times are seen as centrist, and that The Guardian is regarded as anything but straight down the middle, these things tell us a good bit about how far to the right we’ve slid in the last generation or two.

AP and Reuters need to be higher, up with the Beeb. The chart badly overstates the value of the networks, which do a decent enough job telling the story once you accept their corporatist status quo assumptions (which you shouldn’t, ever). It’s heartening to see CNN shoved down the credibility axis – they haven’t been news in 20 years. And it may be true that USA Today and CNN are “better than not reading news at all,” but if so, it’s not better by much.

In general, if you focus your reading in the green “skews liberal” and “mainstream” columns and the gray circle above the Times and WaPo, plus AP and Reuters, you’re going to be better informed than about 95% of Americans.

I really need to do my own version of this chart…

6 replies »

  1. I believe Ms Otero’s biggest weakness is not providing enough media sources. Other than that, even though the chart is a year old, she should’ve left out MSNBC since the station was unequivocally moving to the right at the time and did not roll to a stop until it was past the center line.